Dear Joseph,

I reached the very same conclusion. You will find on pages 2 to 4 of this recently published paper the exact reason why SR is incompatible with electromagnetism, which should confirm your conclusion.

SR and GR alike are unable to account for the existence of electric charges.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards

André

The force between two electric charges depends on the relative motion to an observer. This is the crucial point in SR. You may consider the two charges being at rest but for an observer moving relative the two charges there will be an magnetic effect, i.e. a decrease of the electric force for same-sign charges. This is the sole fact SR is based on.

And the good thing is that this astonishing fact is experimentally verified. In a particle accelerator same sign charges move at high speed close to the speed of light and the force between them is vanishing small, crucial for the functioning of the accelerator. This proves that it is not the relative speed between the charges but the speed relative an observer that is essential. In accordance with SR.

Dear Kjell,

You wrote: "The force between two electric charges depends on the relative motion to an observer."

This directly contradicts Maxwell's first equation, which is Gauss's equation for the electric field, which is itself a generalization of the Coulomb law.

It is easy to verify that the force between two electric charges depends exclusively on the inverse square of the distance separating both charges, irrespective of any observer being involved.

This is experimentally proven since Coulomb to be true whether or not the charges are moving with respect to each other.

This is precisely why SR is not Maxwell equations compliant.

Best Regards

André

André, if there is a theory claiming that the force between two electric charges does not depend on the identical motion of the two charges, this theory needs to explain the experimental fact that I mentioned.

There is a magnetic force depending on the product of the velocities of the two charges. Now, there is no absolute motion in Maxwell Theory, so what are the charges moving in relation to? The experiment I mentioned implies that it is in relation to the observer, exactly as Einstein predicted. What else could motion mean to you, André?

Greetings,

Kjell

Dear Kjell,

You wrote: "André, if there is a theory claiming that the force between two electric charges does not depend on the identical motion of the two charges, this theory needs to explain the experimental fact that I mentioned."

Yes there is a theory that explains the experimental fact that you describe. It is Maxwell's theory. I all high energy accelerators this is what they use to propel and guide charged particles, by means of adaptations of the Lorentz force equation.

In Maxwell's theory, the energy induced in each charge is strictly a function of the distance between charges. When they move, they move in relation to each other, and the force varies according to the inverse of the square of the changing distance.

If you plug a second charge in the E field of the Gauss equation, you directly obtain the Coulomb force equation that gives you the force between these two charges as a function of the inverse square of the distance between the two charges. You can easily check this yourself.

The Coulomb equation and the Gauss equation for the electric field are documented in countless sources, including these reference work used in high energy particle acceleration circles:

Pisin Chen & Kevin Reil, Editors.Joint 28th ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics and Advanced Nova Accelerator Workshops on Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics. January 7-11, 2003, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309. Work supported by Department of Energy contract DE–AC03–76SF00515

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/reports15/slac-r-630a.pdf

And

Humphries S Jr (1986) Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration, John Wiley & Sons.

Best Regards

André

André, the crucial point appears when you write:

" When they move, they move in relation to each other".

In the particle accelerator the charges do not move relative each other, instead they are at rest relative each other. Still the force between them vanish, there is no static Coulomb force as you seem to claim.

I find this discussion very interesting because it is truly the heart of SR. One school, which I understand you belong to, claim that velocity in Maxwell theory means velocity relative charges. The other school claims velocity in Maxwell theory is relative the observer as in SR.

The sole phenomenon that needs to be considered is where two identical charges move in parallel with same velocity. You claim that the force between them is the static Coulomb force since they do not move relative each other, right? But SR says that the force between them is the Coulomb force MINUS the magnetic force where the speed is the one relative the observer. The accelerator example obviously support the latter.

Greetings,

Kjell

Joseph

You are right about one thing, Relativity is not that essential if you want

to study

electromagnetics.

However the form of the wave equation is not invariant

a galilean transformation, and it is under the Lorenz transformation. That is when they get that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source.

However I think that there may be other explanations for this

Special relativity shys away when dealing with forces and accelerations, so its not clear to me how SR is disproved along the lines you mention.

@Joseph Smulsky: Hello Mr. Smulsky, regarding your question, "Am I the only one that believes the Theory of Relativity is defective and false, and it should be thrown away and forgotten?", my answer is: No, you are not the only one; though I have not carefully studied the problem which you mentioned in your post, I do have thorough knowledge on some other important aspects of the special theory of relativity (STR), and in particular, I want to mention the fundamental fact that the STR completely failed to resolve the apparent conflict between the phenomenon of stellar aberration and the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which it (and together with Lorentz's ether theory) had purported to resolve; and as a consequence, the STR turns out to be a fundamentally wrong theory of space and time, which is just the opposite the mainstream physicists have been advocating so far. So, while proceeding from different starting point, you and me do reach the same conclusion: The STR is defective and false, and in principle it can be thrown away and forgotten. I will say more, or provide concrete evidences to what I said, when necessary or requested. Thanks, my best wishes to you, and take care! ~Guangjun Cao

Dear Guangjun, I have never understood that SR aims at explaining MM result but only uses it as a starting point. However, MM result is actually needless for deriving SR, as I have shown in my book for example. So why dismissing SR on that ground I do not quite understand.

Dear Kjell Prytz ,

Sorry for the delay. I just became aware of your answer.

You wrote: " In the particle accelerator the charges do not move relative each other, instead they are at rest relative each other. Still the force between them vanish, there is no static Coulomb force as you seem to claim."

Yes the Coulomb interaction is still at play. It is the Coulomb force that induces the momentum energy that determines the velocity of each of these electrons in the beam.

It may "appear" not to be in action, simply because the vectorial direction of the induced momentum energy of all electrons in the beam are forced into mutually parallel orientation by the ambient magnetic field.

The Coulomb force does not "repel" or "attract". It only "induces" kinetic energy in charged particles. See section titled "The Coulomb Force" in this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

If the Coulomb interaction was not fully active, the electrons velocity would be zero.

By structure, the electric field of any electromagnetic particle is vectorially oriented perpendicularly to its magnetic field, and both are oriented perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the particles. Just look up the Biot-Savart equation.

The electric field provides the momentum energy and relativistic mass increment, and the ratio of the densities of the electric field and magnetic field provide the direction of the trajectories.

This electromagnetic triple orthogonal relation is impossible to overcome at the level of elementary particles.

Best Regards, André

@Kjell Prytz: Hello Dear Kjell, thank you for your reply, and as far as I can see, you have made at least two fundamental points: 1. You seem to disagree with me on how STR was motivated or started; 2. You seem to believe that you have an alternative but correct or legitimate derivation of STR. But let us carefully examine those points one by one, okay? And I will start with point No. 1: Are you familiar with, or aware of, the story of STR's creation, "How I Created the Theory of Relativity?", recounted by Einstein himself, during his 1922 visit of Japan? If no, please take a look at it; if yes, then we can go directly into some details of that story, and for your convenience, here is where (the English translation of) that story appeared: Physics Today, August 1982; and there is also a web link to that story where you can download or freely access to it: https://courses.physics.ucsd.edu/2016/Winter/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf. More resources may be coming when necessary or requested, thanks, and my best wishes to you. ~Guangjun

@Kjell Prytz: To supplement and clarify, my original post claims that the STR was motivated to resolve the apparent conflict between stellar aberration and the null result of MMX, not just to explain MMX. If a theory purports to resolve the (apparent) conflict between A and B, of course it uses both A, B as its starting points, but nevertheless, that's not the whole story, not even the major part of it, because the more important part is how the conflict between the two is resolved, and that was my point. Thanks, take care. ~Guangjun

Dear Andre, I support you in this matter, upto special theory of relativity is valid, I told this earlier and now I repeat, GTR is senseless one, If Einstein is alive he could have withdrawn his theory and many people would have opposed the Einstein because they live with that...